Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

It wasn't released country-wide the way STID was, IIRC. I think it was just one city, Hong Kong, which was counted just as Hong Kong, not China. I'd have to check on it again.

No, Hong Kong is counted as a separate release to China. Star Trek made $1.282 million in Hong Kong, separate from the $8.5 million it made in China. Star Trek didn't get as big a release in China as STID did. That's true. But it was released there. The Chinese market has dramatically expanded for Hollywood films since then.

Okay, so I looked it up and yes, there's the 8.5 mil, but I also read that the film wasn't "distributed" in China, and that's why the number is so small. So, I'm not sure if that means that the 8.5 is from sampling the film there or what, just that it didn't have a country-wide release the way STID did.

I guess the point is that if you allow the movie to be seen by more people, then of course it's going to make more money there. Considering the domestic numbers, it's like I said, thank goodness for the country-wide release in China.

The China numbers are about $57 million. If you take that away from the $221 mil that the movie has made overseas and then compare that to the adjusted domestic number for ST09, you get this:

ST09: ~139 mil
STID: ~164 mil

It's an improvement, but without China (and I think there's still Japan and maybe one other country to go for STID, so that number will increase), it's only about $25 mil over the ST09 movie if we're trying to be as fair as possible in the comparisons we can make.

Ok.

What kind of half baked analysis is this one?

Why do you only take China out?

Ah, because, if you paid attention to my first sentence, that pretty much explains why:

"The other thing that I find interesting is the way it looks when you take China out of the equation."

So no, it's not a "half baked" analysis just because I find it interesting to look at the numbers without China, a country ST09 did not play in, while we are all looking at the international numbers.
You're not saying much of anything that I haven't already pointed to in previous posts, which is that the international numbers are, for the most part, better and that the gross number will increase. I think that's all pretty much even in the post you quoted, lol.

"It’s a modest success for several reasons. First, it cost almost $190 million to make, and Paramount spent a considerable amount of money on advertising above and beyond the production cost (at least $50 million, by one estimate). Second, not all of that $443 million goes to Paramount – a significant percentage goes to the theaters that show the film (1/3rd to 1/2, depending on what is negotiated and how long the film runs). Finally, while it exceeded the International ticket sales of the first film, it did not have the 2X multiplier against domestic box office that other summer films (like Iron Man 3 or Fast and Furious 6) achieved."

The worst thing to come out of that article is the comments section. Unreal amounts of silliness in there talking about ditching Bad Robot and doing the next film for 70 million.

Yes, that will surely keep the franchise alive: Taking away the one thing that is saving it.

"It’s a modest success for several reasons. First, it cost almost $190 million to make, and Paramount spent a considerable amount of money on advertising above and beyond the production cost (at least $50 million, by one estimate). Second, not all of that $443 million goes to Paramount – a significant percentage goes to the theaters that show the film (1/3rd to 1/2, depending on what is negotiated and how long the film runs). Finally, while it exceeded the International ticket sales of the first film, it did not have the 2X multiplier against domestic box office that other summer films (like Iron Man 3 or Fast and Furious 6) achieved."

The worst thing to come out of that article is the comments section. Unreal amounts of silliness in there talking about ditching Bad Robot and doing the next film for 70 million.

Yes, that will surely keep the franchise alive: Taking away the one thing that is saving it.

silliness or not, big budgets don't make a great movie. TWOK and TUC were shot on small budgets and are two of the best films in the series.

"It’s a modest success for several reasons. First, it cost almost $190 million to make, and Paramount spent a considerable amount of money on advertising above and beyond the production cost (at least $50 million, by one estimate). Second, not all of that $443 million goes to Paramount – a significant percentage goes to the theaters that show the film (1/3rd to 1/2, depending on what is negotiated and how long the film runs). Finally, while it exceeded the International ticket sales of the first film, it did not have the 2X multiplier against domestic box office that other summer films (like Iron Man 3 or Fast and Furious 6) achieved."

The worst thing to come out of that article is the comments section. Unreal amounts of silliness in there talking about ditching Bad Robot and doing the next film for 70 million.

Yes, that will surely keep the franchise alive: Taking away the one thing that is saving it.

silliness or not, big budgets don't make a great movie. TWOK and TUC were shot on small budgets and are two of the best films in the series.

No argument there, but as it relates to Trek on the big screen?

The studios have found a system that works for them on the money making end and it doesn't look like lower budgets are coming anytime soon.

silliness or not, big budgets don't make a great movie. TWOK and TUC were shot on small budgets and are two of the best films in the series.

Those movies were made 20-30 years ago.

__________________Now that I've seen it, and have also had time to mellow, to really think about it, I now find it absolutely, unbearably repulsive in every way except for some of the acting. - about The Wrath of Khan. Interstat, Issue 62: 1982